Campaign Collective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

A_B -> Campaign Collective (7/21/2001 11:59:00 AM)

I’ve been carrying on an email conversation with Gallo Rojo, of Argentina, about a Russian Campaign. We both decided that what we really wanted to do was to Play a Russian campaign, not build it. Gallo came up with the idea (probably not original) of a campaign collective. A group of gamers decide on a campaign – time frame, goals, victory paths, etc. Following is an extract from his email; “a group of people decides to design a campaign (Kohima for example). They agree about the number of scenarios, they agree about the storyboard, the victory conditions and all this stuff. Then each of the team members design one scenario of the campaign. Then one of the members link them up. And ... here it is! We have a campaign that we always wanted to play and you only spend time on designing only one scenario, not complete the campaign. And you can also get fun playing the campaign, because you had designed only one or two scenarios.” He had been intending to post this idea. However, he received his copy of MC today, and so may be incommunicado for several weeks. So is there any interest out there? Wild Bill has had a great series of lessons on scenario design, which should help those people who don’t feel confident in their design abilities. And the worse thing that could happen by trying your hand at a design is that you learn something from it and get better.



Gallo Rojo -> (7/21/2001 9:43:00 PM)

I'm here! Not to much time to writhe! But I'm here. I'll post longer later. :)



lnp4668 -> (7/21/2001 11:31:00 PM)

Sounds interesting to me. Now I have to looks up WB's posts. Bookmark it once, now lost it when my computer crashed. :(



jjc424 -> (7/22/2001 10:26:00 AM)

I'll Give it a try.



skukko -> (7/22/2001 8:29:00 PM)

Way to go guys :D I'll help if you want and need ;) but I can províde also scenario to have my copy of it :D mosh



Brutto-Bob -> (7/24/2001 4:32:00 AM)

If you need help, I should design one or two scenarious.



Gallo Rojo -> (7/24/2001 8:45:00 PM)

My friends: I’m having a really busy week. I won’t be able to write a long e-mail about my thoughts regarding to the Campaign Collective until Saturday afternoon. I’m sorry about this. I promise that I will write it on Saturday. Exequiel “Gallo Rojo” Lopresti



Gen. Maczek -> (7/24/2001 9:20:00 PM)

Count me in... Regards. Gen. Maczek



A_B -> (7/26/2001 3:35:00 AM)

Update on Campaign Collective - Russian WW2 Campaign. I’ve collected 36 decent maps of the eastern front, and ordered them by their date of battle. I have some touching up to do, but it is close. Most of the maps were culled from existing east front scenarios, and a couple others were pilfered from Wild Bills Watchword freedom campaign and the Stalingrad campaign. Assuming that a couple battles happen on the same map twice (defend-counter attack sort of thing), and a couple people add there own maps, then we are looking at around 42 scenarios for this campaign. Pre -1941 battles could be added, against Japan and Finland. Fighting Japan could be fun, fighting the Finns not so fun. So at first glance, this is a Huge campaign. At the same time, not much bigger than a computer generated long WWII campaign. Assuming that the ten people listed above participate, then that would be four battles each on average. I’m sure some other people might want to participate, in which case the average would be less. Some problems caused by the size and scope of the campaign will be A) difficulty and play balance, and B) many people won’t want to or be able to (because of time) play it all. Difficulty and play balance will be the hardest problem to solve. I know that some beginners had a very hard and frustrating time on the Stalingrad campaign. At the same time, I know people that find all of the designed campaigns too easy. Once you build your core force to a certain point, in both experience level and equipment, it just gets too easy. Many people will not want to play the entire war, but would be quite happy playing the Russians throughout the summer of ’43. I believe I have a campaign format/storyboard that will solve both of the above issues. The basic premise is to break the entire campaign down into operations. These operations would follow the core force through a series of closely space battles. The amount of battles would vary, from a single one up to six or seven. The average operation would be 3 to 4 battles. Each operation could be played by itself, as a mini campaign, or several could be combined. This concept is similar to Close Combat 3, for those who have played that game. Play balance would be handled within these operations. As long as you are winning (or not loosing to badly, as the case may be), you continue with the operation. Now, what make the operation difficult, and balances the campaign, is that most build points are received between operations, but not between battles within an operation. So once you start an operation, you don’t get to rebuild much. How many battles you advance depends on your skill level, but once you have advanced as much as you can (by failing to get a marginal victory, or whatever the settings for that operation may be), the operation in over. In this way, beginners would get as many points as advanced players, they just wouldn’t fight as many battles. This would also add to the replay value for beginners. They could replay the campaign, do well on the battles they know, but have to struggle on battles that were new to them. As you can see, the good player has a chance to play more battles, and get more campaign points, but a beginner has a chance to build up as strong a core force as an advanced player. I’d also like to leave out the language in the briefing like, “you performance was pour, and we may shoot you if you do this again, comrade.” Yes, it is funny if you’re a good player and just screwed up, but is probably a bit frustrating if you are a beginner. I also don’t see the need for ‘punishment’ battles for loosing. No one really wants to play these, and it will be simpler to build the campaign on an ‘advance or move to next operation’ model. There may be issues, because many of us are not experienced scenario builders. I think this is ok – there’s only one way to improve. Some will make battles too hard, or too easy. I think this is ok to. A commander doesn’t know whether he’ll be able to win the battle or not. If a battle ends up too hard, it can be handled by allowing an advance in the operation on a marginal defeat and by some extra points. Also, some people will design straightforward battles, and some will design tricky ones. This will add to the variety. Following is a list of operations. This is general, and still open for suggestions. Operations; Summer of ‘41 Delay/defend with some counter attacks against army group center - 3 battles Fall/early winter ‘41 Delay/defend with some counter attacks around Moscow - 3 battles Winter ‘41 Counter attacks around Moscow - 4 battles Spring ‘42 Counter attacks in the Ukraine - 3 battles Late summer/Fall ‘42 Delay/defend german advance on Stalingrad - 4 battles Fall ‘42 Counter attacks in Stalingrad - 2 battles Winter ‘42/43 Counter attacks around Stalingrad, ending at Kharkov - 5 battles Summer/Fall of ‘43 Kursk, to Kanev and the Dneiper river crossings. - 6 battles Winter of ‘43/44 Korsun Pocket and beyond - Watchword Freedom from the Russian side - 5 battles Summer ‘44 Bagration - 3 battles Winter ‘45 Battle for Germany - 4 battles Some other items I’d like to see put into the battles of the campaign; The player has the option of using a pre-selected force (which would be a saved game #1 during the deployment phase), or selecting one for themselves. The advantage of using the pre-selected one is that it would be worth a few hundred extra points – and be historically accurate (ie, not all KV 1’s in June of 1941) The battles should be fun and balanced more than historically accurate. Few or no support points – additional troops will be assigned as auxillery. This will keep the player from buying silly stuff, like tons of KV1’s, or landmines in a defensive scenario. Enemy forces use the entire map – there is nothing worse than being able to flank an entire position and not run into anything. It is unrealistic and too easy. Please let me know the following information; What suggestions do you have regarding the concept (and don’t tell me it is too ambitions, I already know that)? Size of the core force. I have been thinking that the core force be 2 companies of tank, and two of infantry. This is pretty big, but it is the east front J. What are your opinions? What operations are you interested in working on? Should pre 1941 options be considered? Is a custom OOB necessary, or even acceptable? Custom OOB’s would allow designers to add some trick units, without having to edit each one within the game. Do you know anyone else who would be interested in designing a battle? If we get twenty people interested, we’d only need to work on two ourselves. I’ll be gone for a long weekend – Fri. to Monday. I could forward the Map collection I have before that to anyone who is interested. Thanks for your interest, Dan … A_B



Tombstone -> (7/26/2001 9:17:00 AM)

Something that can be done is that the scenario be made with whatever scope is desired by the author but that there is space for a predetermined 'value' of units. If we set the intended core force size now, we can build the scenarios accordingly. Tomo



A_B -> (8/3/2001 10:42:00 PM)

UPDATE; Maps are avialable for the designers, for the first two years of the war. Read the following battle briefs, and decide which you would lik to do. Remember, in order to play the campaign, you have to design at least one of the battles. We are still looking for more people, so jump in if it looks interesting. Operation 1 ‘A Rock in the Flood’ Operation overview; It is the opening part of the war. Your core force is weak, and will be handled roughly by the Germans. Your goal is to SURVIVE. If you can do this, there will be ample opportunity to destroy the enemy later. Battle 1 Dubno, June 25th, 1941 - Russian Counter attack Combined force counter attacking a german penetration of the lines. Played on the WBW map of the same name Advance if marginal defeat or better. Battle 2 Sluzk, June 25th, 1941 - Russian Counter attack Combined force counter attacking a german penetration of the lines. No rebuild points between battles, so you will start with a reduced force. Played on the WBW map of the same name Advance if marginal defeat or better. Battle 3 East of Slonim, July 1st, 1941 – Breakout and Escape Attempt to break out of encirclement. You will have to advance across a river in the process. Advance if marginal defeat or better, otherwise skip next Operation End of Operation Operation 2 ‘The Flood Falters’ Operation overview; It is still the opening part of the war. Your core force is starting to strengthen. Your goal is to SURVIVE, while harassing the Germans in a serious of delaying operations. Battle 4 Near Pripet Marshes, August 16th, 1941 - Russian delay with possible counter attack Delay german armored/infantry thrust along the edge of pripet marsh. Advance if draw or better. Battle 5 Kolotchky Station, Oct 13th, 1941 - Russian raid of railhead Attempt to raid a German railhead. Defenses expected to be light, but counterattack will be quick and deadly. Advance if draw or better. Battle 6 Near Tula, Nov. 16th, 1941 - Russian delay Delay Guderians final drive on Moscow – trade ground for time, and cause the Germans casualties. Advance if draw or better. Battle 7 Outskirts of Moscow, Dec. 5th, 1941 - Russian delay, followed by a counter attack. Stop the final German drive on Moscow. Allow the Germans to beat themselves against well-prepared defenses, and then counter attack. End of Operation Operation 3 ‘The Flood Freezes’ Operation overview; Finally your core force can be strengthened considerably. Your goal is to drive the Germans back from the gates of Moscow. Battle 8 Kaluga, December 25th, 1941 - Russian advance with defense against flanking counter attack This is a huge map. The breach in the German lines is happening as this battle starts – done by auxillery forces. Your core force armor will exploit the breach and attempt to reach and hold several river bridges. This will be a huge battle. Advance if draw or better. Battle 9 Kaluga, December 28th, 1941 –. Russian defense against flanking counter attack. This is the same map as the previous battle. Germans attempt to close the breach in their lines, and retake Kaluga. Advance if draw or better. Battle 10 West of Kaluga, January 5th, 1941 –. Russian advance against weak opposition. Blitzkrieg through dwindling german opposition. Bypass the two defended villages. Advance if draw or better. Battle 11 Borodino, January 15th, 1941 –. Russian Assault Deliberate assault against fortified town. Town is heavily defended, but surrounded. Advance if draw or better. Battle 12 East of Vyazma, February 25th, 1941 –. Russian Raid Night raid against railhead/supply point in a small town. End of Operation Operation 4 ‘The Freeze Thaws’ Operation overview; Continuation of Offensive after the spring thaw – fought in a lot of mud. Battle 13 East of Orel, April 1st, 1942 – Ambush of German Column Partisans have lead your armor into a position to attack a german column moving along a road. The ground is still very muddy. Advance if moderate victory or better. Battle 14 Orel, April 3rd, 1942 –. Russian assault. Assault the high ground overlooking Orel, in preparation for a river crossing. Advance if moderate victory or better. Battle 15 Orel, April 4/5th, 1942 –. Russian river crossing and assault This is the same map as the previous battle. Cross the river at night, and attempt to open the ‘back door’. Unfortunately, a victory here won’t be exploited by high command, so the operation will end here. End of Operation Operation 5 ‘The Flood Returns’ Operation overview; Your core force moves south to support the Kharkov offensive. The German counterattack starts prior to your involvement, so you are spared encirclement. Your force is one of the few veteran units that can be use to delay the German drive on Stalingrad. Delay the Germans, but it will be critical to preserve the fighting strength of your core force, because rebuild points will be almost non-existent. All of the maps come from the Stalingrad compaign, but have been expanded to accommodate larger battles. Battle 16 Near Millerovo, July 29th, 1942 – Delay battle along dry river bed. The front is very wide, and the germans can attack anywhere. A mobile defense will have to be used to be successful. Advance if draw or better, otherwise go to 18 (hard) Battle 17 Morozovsk, July 29th, 1942 –. Russian defense Defense of village at creek crossing against german assault. Another wide front to hold with limited forces Advance if draw or better, otherwise go to 18 (hard) Battle 18 Don River, August 2nd, 1942 –. Escape Battle. Break out at night through German lines, and attempt to cross the don river at a ford. Releif forces will launch a diversion from the Russian main lines. Draw or better takes you to next operation, otherwise you skip next operation Battle 18 (hard) Don River, August 2nd, 1942 –. Escape Battle. Blitzkrieg through dwindling german opposition. Same battle as 18, but Germans have had more time to dig in and prepare the defenses. Draw or better takes you to next operation, otherwise you skip next operation End of Operation Operation 6 ‘The Flood Crests’ Operation overview; Your core force, or what is left of it, has only a short time to refit, prior to being called on to continue to defend the approaches to Stalingrad. All of the maps come from the Stalingrad campaign, but have been expanded to accommodate larger battles. Battle 19 Gumrak Station, August 22nd, 1942 – Delay battle Attemp to hold Gumrak station. Advance if draw or better. Battle 20 On the steppe in front of Stalingrad, September 2nd, 1942 – Russian raid on German Artillery. Night raid against German artillery position near Stalingrad Advance if draw or better. Battle 21 Kurgan Hill #1, September 14th, 1942 – Defend battle First of four battles for Kurgan hill. These are the only Stalingrad City battles. Your job is to hold out as long as possible. The four battles will get progressively harder. Unlike most battles in the campaign, the player will have a lot of support points, so they can construct the defense that they choose. Advance if draw or better. Otherwise, go to battle 24 (hard) Battle 22 Kurgan Hill #2, September 14th, 1942 – Defend battle Second of four battles for Kurgan hill. These are the only Stalingrad City battles. Your job is to hold out as long as possible. The four battles will get progressively harder. Advance if draw or better. Otherwise, go to battle 24 (hard) Battle 23 Kurgan Hill #3, September 14th, 1942 – Defend battle Third of four battles for Kurgan hill. These are the only Stalingrad City battles. Your job is to hold out as long as possible. The four battles will get progressively harder. Advance if draw or better. Otherwise, go to battle 24 (hard) Battle 24 Kurgan Hill #4, September 14th, 1942 – Defend battle Final of four battles for Kurgan hill. These are the only Stalingrad City battles. Your job is to hold out as long as possible. The four battles will get progressively harder. Advance to next operation if draw or better, otherwise skip next operation. Battle 24 (hard) Kurgan Hill #4, September 14th, 1942 – Defend battle Final of four battles for Kurgan hill. These are the only Stalingrad City battles. Your job is to hold out as long as possible. The four battles will get progressively harder. Advance to next operation if draw or better, otherwise skip next operation. End of Operation Operation 7 ‘The Tide Turns’ Operation overview; Your core force has had two months to refit and train your new recruits. Now is the time to go on the offensive. Battle 25 Near the Don river, November 19th, 1942 – Assault battle Assault against the Romanian lines. Auxiliary forces available to the penetration. Advance if draw or better. Battle 26 North of Karpovka , November 23rd, 1942 – Advance battle Link up with the forces from the 51st Army, to complete the encirclement of Stalingrad. Advance if draw or better. Battle 27 Pitomnik Airfield, December 24th, 1942 – Assault battle Assault against the Stalingrad pockets last airfield. Advance if draw or better.



lnp4668 -> (8/4/2001 12:21:00 AM)

I would like to do 26 & 27, maybe 25 if we stills needs designer.



Slayer -> (8/4/2001 1:10:00 AM)

I have no real preferance for any particular battle, so feel free to assign me any battle that needs doing. Keep in mind that the more experienced designers should probably handle battles such as the 'break out of encirclement and cross river', leaving the more straightforward battles to the inexperienced designers amongst us (like me!).



darroch -> (8/4/2001 3:12:00 AM)

A_B - what you suggest sounds excellent. I have been thinking of doing Operation Bagration for my friend in roughly the format you suggest and would be happy to share the results with anyone who's interested. But it will take some time! Your "ambitious" approach will work very well if even a few diligent people get involved. I know it will because I am playtesting the 5th scenario in an 8-scenario campaign game that covers Manstein in the Ukraine in September 1941 (Yes, I know Lost Victories is coming out soon - I would have done another topic had I known!). This started because my friend was not happy with the standard generated campaign and the bundled campaigns had not captured his interest. He especially didn't like how after 5 or 6 games, your force ended up with elite infantry, big artillery, and super tanks thanks to the ability to upgrade and lots of build points...so I told him I'd build a campaign for him and then he's supposed to alter the setup just enough so I can play it after he is done. He wanted a campaign game where his core force (2 Inf companies, 1 tank company, and assorted collateral troops, representing a battalion task force or kampfgruppe) would fight an extended series of battles with few to no support points or battle points. Just his battalion, some AUX units and the enemy...that way if he took too many losses, he would fail in later battles - thus keeping his attention on the game. He also preferred more historical forces rather than elite troops and super tanks...he wanted to see what he could do with just plain old infantry and tanks... So, I set him up with 2 companies of motorized panzergrenadiers (no halftracks!) and one of Panzers (plain old MkIIIs) with recon and engineers and such (5600 build points). Scenario 1: post-Kiev pocket - fleeing Russians - his kampgruppe is to pursue the broken forces and determine where the new main line of resistance is. No rebuild points after this battle. Scenario 2: The infantry have come up to break the Soviet's new main line of resistance - his kampgruppe is held in reserve to exploit the breakthrough and must exit the lower map edge nearly intact to get the victory. This is a big, bloody one. No rebuild points after this battle. If player follows orders, they won't be needed because the AUX units are to achieve the bloody breakthrough and take all the losses. Scenario 3: Rampage through the Corp and Division rear areas - but look out for AA batteries and artillery firing over open sights. This one is a bit of a shooting gallery except that a few of the ducks have heavy caliber weapons. No rebuild points after this battle either. Scenario 4: The Russian's are trying to evacuate a military industrial complex by truck. Mechanized access is strictly limited - it is an infantry battle and the enemy is mostly factory workers - rifles and molotovs - with a few surprises. Major rebuild points after this one to reflect a pause while the kampgruppe is transferred to the East for more fighting. Scenario 5: Russian assault on a rifle battalion - the kampfgruppe is the counterattack force but needs to avoid heavy casualties because there is more fighting to do and no time to rebuild...No rebuild points after this battle. Scenario 6: Russians have broken through a Rumanian Mountain brigade and the kampfgruppe is to counterattack into the flanks of the Russian combined arms assault. This one's intended to be pretty intense and reflect a really confused, broken situation. No rebuild points after this battle. Scenario 7: Kampfgruppe is southern pincer of an encirclement. Northern pincer is Panzers from Kelist's Panzergruppe 1. Meet in the middle of the map and cut off the Russian 18th Army. No rebuild points after this battle. Scenario 8: Same map as Scenario 7 - now mission is to hold the encirclement against crazed Russian attempts to breakout to the East. I hope to make this a real nail-biter since it leads into another rebuild period with major points. Major rebuilding after this battle or end of campaign. I had planned further scenarios showing the kampgruppe fighting through the Crimea and the Kerch counterattacks - still might...but I started thinking about Bagration and got a detailed book...and then I saw your post...I'd be willing to take a stab at Bagration in a similar fashion as I just described for the kampfgruppe, with the following changes: Russian core unit would be a smaller but elite tank force - maybe the new JS-2s and/or SU-152s with few support units. Most scenarios would involve lots of AUX units already set up and the player's role will be to decide where to employ this crucial strike force to get the decisive victory. I think this might be a way to avoid the situation where's the player's core force gets so elite as to make everything a walkthrough...if the core is only a few units, then what you have is an elite strike force that can make or break a tight situation but one that must avoid grappling with major forces... Similar approach to be used where build points would be scarce until pauses in operations (as you envisioned) - the follow-on could be a notional transfer to Galicia for the subsequent offensive by Koniev's boys and girls...then maybe Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary.... Sound OK so far? :D



darroch -> (8/4/2001 3:17:00 AM)

Let me add some of the things I've discovered building these scenarios for my friend: 1) The 100 formation limit is a definite constraint. 100 formations means maybe 500 units maximum - this really makes it hard to do anything besides a battalion sized fight, assuming you have any collateral units at all. For my kampgruppe buddy, I usually use nearly all 100 formations but I vary the quality of the units, the victory objectives, and the map to generate the right amount of challenge. If you want to "populate" the rear echelons with realistic forces and avoid the "empty rear lines" syndrome, you'll need to cut the relative size of forces in half to allow for enough formations in the rear. 2) Decide how historical you want the game to be - I tend to prefer a highly playable game in a historical setting with typical forces. When scenario building, if I lack information or a good map, I make it up as best I can, trying to be reasonable. Someone who wants a very strict, historical treatment, may not be very happy with my approach but I figure most of us are happy with playable first then historical as time and resources permits 3) Get everyone to agree on the size and makeup of the core force used for playtesting the scenario. Let the player know about it. You cannot prevent the player from choosing a lopsided force but if he wants the maximum challenge and fun, he'll buy a force similar to the playtest force because he'll know the battles are tailored to that size /type force. You defined 2 infantry and 2 tank companies as a notional core force - convert that into a build point equivalent for your scenario designers and the resulting scenarios should have a more consistent feeling to them. 4) Use lots of Wilder tricks to compensate for the fact that the AI is predictable - you know, scattered mines, surprise flank attackers, etc.. Exploit the random elements of the AI as much as possible (I gave the Russians two biplane bombers - they came in and the computer targeted the halftrack my friend was "riding" in!! [we use the ability to change the commanders names to "personalize" some of our units - for some reason, people we don't like end up in the scouts a lot....go figure] anyways, the AI did that all by itself and we both got a big laugh out of it) 5) A pre-scenario briefing and lots of map text can add a lot of good feel to the game too. I know it's extra work but it adds such a nice flavor to the scenario plus you can half-warn him about any tricks you've added...Also, renaming units during deploy adds a lot - in my factory scenario, I've got workers, militia, even commissars. 6) Allow plenty of time....I started the Manstein campaign in late May and have finished 4 scenarios and have the 5th under playtest just now - takes a minimum of 1.5 weeks per scenario for me at least - maybe 15-20 hours actual computer time - about evenly split between map and scenario notes (33%), unit buy and deploy (33%) and playtest against myself 2-3 times (33%). Then I send it to my buddy for his evaluation. So far, he's enjoyed each one. My friend says the results are good so far - his corrections have largely been advice on victory hex placement and AUX unit deployment for the assault scenario. Hope this helps. Keep up the good work. I can't wait to start work on the assault against Orsha!!! P.S. Anybody got good online data about Bagration? :rolleyes:



john g -> (8/4/2001 3:31:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by darroch: Let me add some of the things I've discovered building these scenarios for my friend: 1) The 100 formation limit is a definite constraint. 100 formations means maybe 500 units maximum - this really makes it hard to do anything besides a battalion sized fight, assuming you have any collateral units at all
What sort of battles are you expecting to build? I did a German WWII campaign with a core of 26 units in about 10 formations. I don't want to try a campaign where I have even a hundred units to move each turn. Battles with 500 units on each side boggle my mind. I can't see any room for maneuver on the battlefield with that many units. It would be more like Napoleonic warfare with masses of units shoulder to shoulder. thanks, John.



darroch -> (8/4/2001 4:22:00 AM)

to John G: Yeah, they sure are big battles - kinda a matter of taste I suppose... I like the feeling of a combined arms force taking a set of objectives against a defense in depth... The smaller scenarios are fun and quick too. That's the fun of SPWAW - tailorable for just about every taste... The main thing is to get agreement among the scenario designers as to the scale of the fights to be built... what you don't want to see is one scenario built for a 500 point force followed up by one for 5500 points!! ;)



A_B -> (8/4/2001 5:08:00 AM)

Darroch, we must be long lost relatives or something. Our ideas are extremely similar. I’ll address your points one by one. Since both posts are long, I’ll edit your items. People can see the full post above. 1) “The 100 formation limit is a definite constraint.” I agree to a point. But as John G. makes clear, many people think 100 is too many. As a squad level game, I see max. formations as between a full brigde with support, or two reduced brigades. Anything bigger would be better handle in a Platoon or company level game. That being said, I like large battles – the way they can ebb and flow, with many smaller engagements making up the larger battle. And to rebut John G. argument, large enemy forces are needed to; provide defenders for the entire map width, so there are no weak flanks that you can sneak around, add depth to the defenders, add reinforcements, and weight to an attack – ie. One infantry battalion attack is followed on turn eight by a second, followed by the tanks on turn 14. So I see the 100 limit as a reality check on what we are trying to do 2) “Decide how historical you want the game to be” I think you are right on. It is near impossible to get accurate maps of this scale. Marauder Mel made his maps off of aerial photos of Stalingrad, and they were awesome. But until I win the lotto, and can hire a couple guys to make me maps, the fastest thing to do is make a fun, playable map that gives a ‘sense’ of the history. The Long Russian campaign we are doing now is meant to replace a ‘computer’ generated one, so that is the benchmark for accuracy; ie; the name is right, there is a river if there should be, it is winter, etc. All of the maps are coming from previous scenarios or campaign, with a few modifications here and there (usually to make them bigger, or add some of the newer graphics). 3) “Get everyone to agree on the size and makeup of the core force used for playtesting the scenario.” From the feedback I’ve had so far, this will be the toughest item to agree on. Some want one company plus support, some want armored brigade (900 men, 44 tanks, 9 a.cars). I think the average would be a battalion size, of mixed units. The force I have picked for the first battle (and players can start with this force, or pick there own) consists of: 9 T34’s, 14 BT7m’s, 8 BA11 arm.cars, 2 platoons of SMG, 2 platoons of trucks, 2 platoons of scouts, 2 sections GAZ AA, 1 platoon 45mm at guns, 1 platoon of wagons, 1 FO, 1 staff car, 3 50mm mortars. Most of the units are part of three company’s – one tank, and two ‘heavy recon’. I made these in the editor, but the formations will be ok using the standard oob (I checked). The reason for doing it this way are many. First, it seems like a fairly historic mix of units, without getting stuck with anything which sucks too bad, like t26’s. You get the benefit of company HQ’s. Two of the groups are ‘task organized, with tanks, armcars, recon, smg’s. Also, you have a lot of room to build up. The wagons, 45mm at guns, a.cars, scouts, can all be upgraded, either to a lot of reasonabale stuff, or a few really good things, like KV’s. Part of it is for the ‘story’. You start as a young tank company commander. In the first battle, you have some mixed units you are also commanding. By ’42 you are commanding a battalion (as the core gets upgraded). By the end of the war, you are a tank brigade commander; your core battalion plus auxiliary attachments. Of course, many people will want to pick their core, which is great (that was my compliant of the Mega Campaign, and one of the reasons I stopped playing it – it just felt like I was playing scenarios, roughly linked to together. I just couldn’t personalize my force). There will be a loss of a few points (200 maybe), to encourage using the picked force. The problem is that if someone picks all KV’s, which would be very a-historic, they can dominate the battles through mid ’42, but by then, wouldn’t be able to use all of the points they are getting, so by mid ’43 they start to loose, because they can’t build a big enough core force. 4) “Use lots of Wilder tricks to compensate for the fact that the AI is predictable” Absolutely. Because scenario designers will be of different skill, I’ll try and give the ‘tricky’ battles to the more experienced. I’ll also see if WBW has his scenario design lessons consolidated somewhere, and email them to everyone. WB said he would design one of the battles as well, which will be great (think he’ll make it hard or easy?). Letting a lot of people to design will mean that some of the battles aren’t put together as well. But it’ll get people experience, and get more campaigns out there. 5) “A pre-scenario briefing and lots of map text can add a lot of good feel to the game too.” Again, I absolutely agree. I made a phillipines campaign ’41. In one of the battles, the locals marked on your map the location of enemy bunkers and AA guns. So you knew they were there, just not how accurate the information was. It worked out very well according to play testers. 6) “Allow plenty of time” This is the whole reason for the collective. I’ve started three other campaigns, all of which could have been very good. They were a long German campaign, a US Airborne Campaign, and a US Army Pacific campaign. The problem is, I wanted to play them, not build them, so I lost interest after awhile. It is near impossible to play test a battle you’ve built, if it revolves around WBW type surprises. I know that a collaborative work may lack the cohesiveness of one persons work. On the other hand, you start to know what a designer is going to do – there bag of tricks. Not knowing the designer means that they may do something stupid, but you’re not expecting it, so it works. Just like real war. “My friend says the results are good so far - his corrections have largely been advice on victory hex placement and AUX unit deployment for the assault scenario.” Learning how the AI reacts to the victory hexes is one of the biggest things to learn in scenario design. I made a battle in the Phillipines, where you are trying to sneak through Jap lines to escape the island. They are all around you. I get the AI to follow the path taken by the player by having VH show up when the player lands on them, or after the period of time it should take to get to them. It worked great. My biggest complaint as a designer is controlling what type of victory is achievable. It is just very hard to get a decisive victory on points, unless you are in defense and it is a turkey shoot. It is just the way the computer scores it that bothers me. So, in some of my battles a ‘draw’ is equivelent to a decisive, a marginal defeat is a marginal victory, and a decisive defeat is between a draw and a dec. defeat. “P.S. Anybody got good online data about Bagration?” Both Bruto Bob and Mike (the lad from Poland) have mentioned interest in Bagration. Maybe Bruto Bob can do Kursk, and the advanced in late ’43. You and Mike could work on Bagration together. Most importantly, we need the storyboard, then the maps, and then assign battle to be made on the maps. I’ll add you to our email list, and forward the full story board to you.



A_B -> (8/4/2001 5:26:00 AM)

quote:

The main thing is to get agreement among the scenario designers as to the scale of the fights to be built... what you don't want to see is one scenario built for a 500 point force followed up by one for 5500 points!!
The core I’m suggesting for the first battle is as follows (keep in mind that the first major set of build points will be for the counter attacks of ’41, so this is what you’ll have up to the defense of Moscow); 9 T34’s, 14 BT7m’s, 8 BA11 arm.cars, 2 platoons of SMG, 2 platoons of trucks, 2 platoons of scouts, 2 sections GAZ AA, 1 platoon 45mm at guns, 1 platoon of wagons, 1 FO, 1 staff car, 3 50mm mortars. This is 31 armored vehicles, which could be expanded to 43 if the trucks and wagons are upgraded (the men can ride on the tanks, captain), even more if you upgrade the SP AA guns. With upgrades, you could end up with 4 platoons of inf./eng. 45mm at guns upgraded to heavy artillery, etc. To compare, the Mega Campaign has 21 tanks, and 6 a.cars in the core. So it seems the proposed core is big enough, but not too unwieldy. I could go bigger. I’d rather have core forces, instead of auxillery. It is too easy to just use up your auxiliary as lead catchers, because you have no identity with them. Comments welcome. Let me know your preferences.



Tombstone -> (8/4/2001 5:32:00 AM)

It is VERY important that we nail down the scope and scale of these scenarios and the campaign core force NOW. Should we assume a core force of initially 2000 points? Should we assume battalion sized battles in all cases assuming the player gets some kind of company sized combat team? If we do this we should also assume that the core force is likely to be very strong as the campaign progresses. The later scenarios will not necessarily jive with the earlier one's if this situation isn't planned for. BTW- I would like to do scenario #3, and #4. Tomo



A_B -> (8/4/2001 5:50:00 AM)

Tomo, are you on my mailing list by another name? If not, i'll get send you more detialed info. This thread is for general population awareness. I've emailed the proposed core force, along with a brief questionaire on it (to objectify the results). Play balance will be a huge part/potential problem of the campaign. That is the reason it is split into operations. If you are doing great, you will have the experience and power to complete entire operations. If you are new to the game, or just make a mistake and get pounded somewhere, you'll only have the strength to start operations, but not go all thw way through. The goal then would be to rebuild strengh/experience. An expert SPWAW player may get to play all of the battles. The same expert who makes a bad call or has some bad luck (I just had three full SMG squads get destroyed by a Stuka), may take three or four operations to build back up to the level where they can dominate again. My main problem in other campaign is that they get too easy after 4 or 5 battles, hopefully this concept avoids this, without being too hard for beginners.



darroch -> (8/4/2001 5:51:00 AM)

Thx A_B - sounds like there's lotsa room for agreement...I look forward to your email As I read your response, it occurred to me to suggest (sadly this will increase workload) that an organized approach to playtesting be followed by a second round of scenario editing. Notionally: 1) Scenario designer does his/her best shot at assigned job, computer tests it until satisfactory initial results achieved 2) play tests it solitaire 2-3 times until all seems more or less as planned - will have to use a representational unit for the core force as a placeholder... 3) sends scenario to 2-3 playtesters assigned sort of at random or as people with time volunteer...I think somebody had a thread about being a good playtester - we ought to dredge that up and build a quick-to-fill-out template to get a level of consistency in the feedback... 4) playtesters play scenario as a standalone scenario. Write up a brief AAR (just the facts, ma'am) for the designer. 5) designer reviews feedback, makes tweaks and adjustments as desired 6) fits edited scenario into campaign slot and tests to ensure smooth transition between scenarios 7) Depending on level of quality desired, have someone (with lotsa time) play through the campaign and do a final feedback wrapup on the overall campaign 8) Distribute finished campaign and solicit player feedback for use if someone wants to "jiggle" the campaign - by "jiggle" here I mean edit the scenarios just enough to make it different but not enough to warrant re-testing - such that someone who played it before will still get surprised here and there (i.e. now, where's that Tiger that was behind those wodds the first time I played this scenario....BOOM!! Ahh-Ah-ah - he's hiding behind the ridgeline this time, bucko! And he's now a Nashorn...) This might be the best way to re-use the work that will go into these campaigns. BTW, you might offer your partial campaign games (those you lost interest in) to any interested takers who would then invest the time needed to finish them and then send them back to you as a nice thank you, with built in surprises and rekindled interest!!! Also, if people are already doing Bagration, I could do something else... Further points to ponder: If scenario branching is used, what happens if player gets decisive versus marginal? Does decisive get your some build points as a reward? (making future decisives that much easier) Does decisive get you more challenges the next time (i.e. a few more Tigers to fight) - tends to disincentivize a person but offers good bragging rights I had toyed with rewarding a decisive victory for my friend's kampfgruppe with bonus AUX units that carry over from game to game...still kinda like that approach.. Are there any penalties for a loss other than reduced chances of winning successive fights? (I always make a decisive loss an assignment to the penal battalion to prevent surrendering to gain points but it is not really necessary) Cheers. :D



A_B -> (8/4/2001 7:23:00 AM)

Darroch, while i agree with everything you say, this level of work is beyond the concept of the campaign collective. The truth is, i just want to play the campaign. To build it and test it how you describe would be great, but who ever does that won't be able to play it - cause they'll know it to well. The idea behind the collective is doing a little work to get a lot of fun. I'll answer your points in more detial below; [QUOTE] 1) Scenario designer does his/her best shot at assigned job, computer tests it until satisfactory initial results achieved[QUOTE] I imagine a few of us who are the most advanced in the campaign will, in essence, playtest as we go. Corrections will be made for follow-on testers, to correct problems. This won't be balance, you say? I like that. Balanced battles in a campaign are boring. If a battle is going pretty well, you know you're about to get hit with a WBW surprise. If the surprise isn't very serious, you know you have another one coming. And you also know they'll never be too serious. So, by playing fresh, i may get some stuff that is really hard, or too easy. That's ok, cause it's just like real war. [QUOTE] 2) play tests it solitaire 2-3 times until all seems more or less as planned - will have to use a representational unit for the core force as a placeholder...[QUOTE] Correct on this. The representative force would come from people far advanced in the campaign. If three to four people all start an operation at the same time, the average of thier core force can be used. [QUOTE] 3) sends scenario to 2-3 playtesters assigned sort of at random or as people with time volunteer...I think somebody had a thread about being a good playtester - we ought to dredge that up and build a quick-to-fill-out template to get a level of consistency in the feedback... 4) playtesters play scenario as a standalone scenario. Write up a brief AAR (just the facts, ma'am) for the designer. 5) designer reviews feedback, makes tweaks and adjustments as desired[QUOTE] It'd be good to get this thread info. I feel pretty confident that i can build a battle and have it play out like i want. But i rely more on surprise than a balance of forces. Some people will get more out of playtesting than others. Again, later in the campaign the differneces in core forces will be huge, so balance will be quite subjective. [QUOTE] 6) fits edited scenario into campaign slot and tests to ensure smooth transition between scenarios 7) Depending on level of quality desired, have someone (with lotsa time) play through the campaign and do a final feedback wrapup on the overall campaign[QUOTE] The mechanics you bring up are very important, and haven't been addressed in detail. I plan to play throught the campaing, plugging in battle i get from designers as i go. If a couple of us do that, and we communicate with each other, we'll have a good feel for the balance, playabity, fun, etc. Once we've gone through it, we'll tweak it and put it out for 2nd round playing. After this, tweak it a bit more, and then it's ready for public consumtion. I realize this won't make as good a campaign as your suggestion, i am just unwilling to put that much work into something i can't enjoy playing (because i know all of the deployments). Remember, we are talking 50 plus battles. [[QUOTE] 8) Distribute finished campaign and solicit player feedback for use if someone wants to "jiggle" the campaign - by "jiggle" here I mean edit the scenarios just enough to make it different but not enough to warrant re-testing - such that someone who played it before will still get surprised here and there (i.e. now, where's that Tiger that was behind those wodds the first time I played this scenario....BOOM!! Ahh-Ah-ah - he's hiding behind the ridgeline this time, bucko! And he's now a Nashorn...)[QUOTE] This is a great idea. cruising through and editing each battle a bit would only take a few hours. The individual scnearios could be made available for donwload. Also, someone could then make and easier version, or harder, could make the battle a bit smaller to accomodate a core force, or vise versa. Bottom line, 90% of the work will be done, and can be kept fresh for a long time to come. [QUOTE] BTW, you might offer your partial campaign games (those you lost interest in) to any interested takers who would then invest the time needed to finish them and then send them back to you as a nice thank you, with built in surprises and rekindled interest!!![QUOTE] Well, I have poland and france, you have barbarossa, and Tomo has Zitadelle. My core could easily evolve into what you had. I don't know about Tomo's. But add some '42 battles, and you have a 'Blitzkrieg' Grand campaign. [QUOTE] Also, if people are already doing Bagration, I could do something else...[QUOTE] Gen. Maczek has said he has a Bagration map almost done. And sense he lives in Poland, he should have a slight advantage over us in making things look right :) Bagration will be 2 to 3 battles, so you could each do one, and Gen. Maczek could be in charge of the maps. [QUOTE] Further points to ponder: If scenario branching is used, what happens if player gets decisive versus marginal?[QUOTE] Usually not to much, except points earned. I've never been to concerned with points, becuase there is nothing to compare them to. I know whether i did good or not. Perhaps in the 2nd round build, there could be several versions of battles. If you get a dec.vict., the enemy is not entrenched, and there are few minefield. With a draw, you move foreward but the enemy is better entrenched. This would rewared hard playing, but will probably put beginners at a huge disadvantage. The whole reason i came up with the Operation concept was to accomodate different ability levels. [QUOTE] Does decisive get your some build points as a reward? (making future decisives that much easier) Does decisive get you more challenges the next time (i.e. a few more Tigers to fight) - tends to disincentivize a person but offers good bragging rights[QUOTE] Agian, the reward would be knowing that you are still advancing. Attrition within a Operation will sort out people of different abilities. Also, the games concept of different victory levels is very inflexable, and i dont' like it at all, as a campaign designer. [QUOTE] I had toyed with rewarding a decisive victory for my friend's kampfgruppe with bonus AUX units that carry over from game to game...still kinda like that approach..[QUOTE] That would be good, or having the enemy less dug in/fewer mines etc., to reflect that you could advance faster if you had just trounced him, but if it was a draw, they could put out a heavy rear guard. Either way would be good, but would also make it so much harder for a newbie to join in the fun - which is important. [QUOTE] Are there any penalties for a loss other than reduced chances of winning successive fights?[QUOTE] In some instances, you skip the whole next operation. This could cost a lot of points, cause most of them are recieved at the start of an operation. In essnece, you'd have skipped over a big chunck of points. [QUOTE] (I always make a decisive loss an assignment to the penal battalion to prevent surrendering to gain points but it is not really necessary)[QUOTE] Historically, this is what campaing designers do. I remember getting chewed out in Panzer General! Again, i don't want to frustrate beginners. And know one wants to play punishment battles, ie; a super hard defense. The tendancy when you are faced with this is to cheat - go back to before a big surprise and prepare for it. Anyway, i've sensed frustration by beginener with the mega campaign, getting chewed out for losses. the sense is that the campaign is too hard. I don't want people to get that feeling with the Russian campaign. Beginners may only play 20 battles, but they'll get to Berlin eventually.



pops -> (8/4/2001 12:49:00 PM)

woah baby!...this sounds GOOD!



Gen. Maczek -> (8/5/2001 2:45:00 AM)

Whoa there Darroch! Before u do any unneccessary work! Im already about half way through doing Bagration! Still just about everything else is free though, as all the others are still arguing about core forces and other such things, while the 'rest' of us are actualy working :rolleyes: :D. Regards. Gen Maczek



darroch -> (8/5/2001 8:00:00 AM)

Gen Maczek: not to worry - nothing started yet... Have a good situational overview of Orsha and of the Liberation of Minsk courtesy of a book called "Operation Bagration" by Steven Zaloga... He has two big graphics that offer a panoramic view of the battlelfields from 20,000 feet That's the main reason I thought to do Bagration - because I had good data. I'll wait until there's a plan.



A_B -> (8/5/2001 10:36:00 AM)

Darrach, do you have a way to get the images to Gen. Maczek? Scan as a jpeg and email them to him? Maczek lives in Poland, and may live in near the areas of where Bagration finished. That would be something, to have someone make the maps after walking the terrain :) . We should hire a russian historian to this around Moscow and Kursk for us, unless there are some russian on the board. I haven't seen any, but i used to play CC against a russian. Gen. Mazcek, can you send Darrock and I an idea of what you're planning? I'm going to emal you the first battle, including the pre-picked core for you to try out - should be tomorrow. About the next campiagn. I like your Polish Campaign idea. It would basicly be a long WWII campaign following the British path, but start in poland first. Then a couple in France 1940, and then probably to the desert, but not till late '41, for the releif of Tobruk.



Tombstone -> (8/5/2001 2:04:00 PM)

I have to Soviet General Staff Study on Bagration. I have some decent maps as well. I was thinking of doing a campaign on Bagration from the standpoint of the 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps, it did a lot of work over the course of the operation. Tomo



darroch -> (8/5/2001 8:25:00 PM)

re: sending JPEGS of graphics - I think I can figure out how but need email address. thought occurred that BAGRATION was a pretty big affair - probably lots of room for various views. There was the Bagramyan pincer and the Rokossovskii pincer for starts, then the flank attacks out of the swamps, I just read about 3rd Gds Tank Corps with mostly Shermans going after the 505 Heavy Panzer with 29 Tigers - Germans claimed 128 tanks destroyed but lost all their Tigers...that would be a scrap.. Plus, I found Mellenthin refers to the Galicia attacks that followed the destruction of HG Mitte...provides enough data for an "operation" a little coordination is all we need. Cheers



Gen. Maczek -> (8/5/2001 10:32:00 PM)

Hello again... To be honest I am concentrating on the later part of Bagration (July-August) simply because I know the terrain very well (I pass through it a lot on the way to visit family, up North). I also have a fair amount of good data on the fighting here (although to be honest, I prefer sacrificing total authenticity in favour of a more enjoyable game). Since you have such good data and material, why not consider enlarging the original suggestion of 3/4 battles for Bagration to 5/6...I can share the work with Darroch, he taking the early-mid part of the operation while I continue with what I have started. Obviously this might mean making cuts somwhere else, but I believe Bagration to be worthy of a more detailed look. Regards. Gen. Maczek ps. I have the brief for the first scenario transalted (advance near Siedlce, as a part of 2nd Guards Cavalry Corps) and I am just about ready to send it to anyone willing to take the rough end of the stick and play test it.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.046875